Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

How to improve this article

Stop telling the reader what MGTOW is. Start saying that sources say what MGTOW is. Chrisrus (talk) 07:05, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But all you "editors" have done is reject and reject and reject some more, sources provided to you, if they are provided to you. so it is the same as providing no sources at all. You keep citing that "it's biased" and fail to explain that bias yourselves, but just expect everyone to accept it. So how can we improve an article where you reject so many sources? ShadowKomet (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Bias isn't the issue. Reliability is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But there is bias on what is considered "reliable".ShadowKomet (talk) 11:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Then you will have to live with it. WP:RS is pretty clear ----Snowded ^TALK 11:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snowded If I were to go by that description, over 50% of the Feminist page would have to be revamped. ShadowKomet (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Then go revamp it. I'll put in on watch .... ----Snowded ^TALK 11:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You fail to understand then. Even though the page fails in parts according to the WP:RS, any casual reader could tell it to still be accurate as soon as they apply that information. So I'm sorry, but to tear it apart now, would be a disservice. So how accurate do you want the page to be? Feminism or MGTOW, it doesn't matter. By being too "choosy" you are actually being neglectful of factual information, just from a source the current bias says is unreliable. ShadowKomet (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi ShadowKomet. Whether or not "any casual reader could tell it to still be accurate as soon as they apply that information" is ultimately irrelevant. Wikipedia isn't a manual, textbook, guidebook, or academic journal; it doesn't publish original thought. It isn't the role of editors to judge the accuracy of information. Instead, in Jimbo's words we simply "check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers" (see Wikipedia:Core content policies). benzband (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Benzband then explain to me the need for "reliable" sources if it is not "the job" of Wikipedia to make determinations of repute. ShadowKomet (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that was wrong(immediate above, my bad), but "reliability" and "accuracy" are kind of things that are progressions of one another. You seek that which is reliable, in the hopes of obtaining accuracy, otherwise, what would be the point? ShadowKomet (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Reliable" and "Reputable" are synonyms, but are not the same. ShadowKomet (talk) 13:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reputable in the sense that the sources should be third-party, published, and have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:SOURCE). I quoted Jimmy Wales' words as a different way of saying it because you were pointed to actual policy text already.

You agreed above that "the page fails in parts according to the WP:RS". If content doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements then it can't be included. What's the issue then? Is it with the policies themselves? Or with their application to a particular source (which can be discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard)? benzband (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Who decides that a source is reputable for accuracy or reliability? There are also sources that "claim" to be of your idea of reputable, but their actions are otherwise, but then they are often cited by other places, who also make said claim, but yet they sourced someone/organization, who's information is classically bad. You then choose to potentially, but likely, ignore primary sources, that are more likely to be accurate because of rigid, often ignorant, thinking. Best of all, you just pointed out that your endgame is accuracy, but reputation for, and actually being are two different things. You are essentially using the lens(Third Party) of a potential bias to analyze the analysis(Second hand) of a subject(primary). Ever played the game "Telephone"? ShadowKomet (talk) 14:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@ShadowKomet: I'm not trying to be snarky, but I don't know how else to say this... You should read the links people are including in their comments, because those links answer all of the questions you're raising. That's why people are hyperlinking things like WP:SOURCE in their responses. They are directing you to the specific policies that define what exactly a reputable source is and why third party sources are preferred. Permstrump (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is something I have already read, so rather than tossing me out of hand, how about realizing that "oh! Maybe, just maybe, the answers are NOT in fact, all there." ShadowKomet (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ideally the decision is made by the whole community which tries to achieve some sort of consensus. The rules aren't absolute, and specific sources can be discussed case by case. Nor are they unchangeable, but that's really beyond the scope of this article. And while Wikipedia is obviously far from perfect, it would be much worse off if it allowed for the inclusion of original research. benzband (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but your current system is basically sourcing third parties (the lens, not the analysis), who at this point in time, are all sourcing other third parties, essentially in a citation loop chain. "But, but, but, they are reputable!" right? ShadowKomet (talk) 15:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Once more, you take issue with how Wikipedia works as a whole. That's nothing new, and is of relevance to the whole project rather than just this specific article.

As for the issue of citation loops: while it definitely occurs, and needs to be addressed when encountered, I don't believe it currently affects all of Wikipedia's sources. benzband (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

yes, but compare how MGTOW sources are treated, versus the Feminist ones. Most Notably, Bell Hooks, who is a feminist, and therefore biased, but that doesn't make her observations any less accurate in regards to feminism. Back here on MGTOW, any time someone posts a similarly objectively correct source, it ends up rejected. So when those of us trying to honestly improve the page are asking "Why?" when sources get rejected, it is because someone is VERY rigidly following what is supposed to be only acknowledged as a "follow as applicable" guideline. ShadowKomet (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Bell Hooks (and similar figures) get cited because they are (a) notable, and (b) published in WP:RS. Where there is controversy regarding a claim, WP:NPOV also lets us say things like "According to Bell Hooks...". If you can find notable MGTOW figures who are quoted as such in WP:RS, we can use their comments here, similarly attributed. -- The Anome (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Notable to whom? Remember that! Notable to whom? Sounds like the formation of bias to me. And I did not find Bell Hooks' name in the entire document of the WP:RS. Her name is not "published" in that document. On the Feminist page, Bell Hooks is only mentioned as a citation, and not as "According to..." I've been given flack for "Not reading" materials, but seriously... come on. ShadowKomet (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm using "notable" in the Wikipedia sense -- see WP:N. Being notable is not an absolute requirement of an opinion being cited, but it helps: it certainly helps with the "prominent" part of WP:UNDUE. That opinion being reported or published in WP:RS, either by its author, or by another writer citing its author, on the other hand, is a requirement of WP:RS. If you're talking about writing by Bell Hooks being used merely as a cite for something else, that only requires publication in WP:RS, in the same way that we can cite Martin Daubney or Kay Hymowitz here in their role as writers for an WP:RS, not as public figures. In this case, the reputation is that of the WP:RS, not the writer. -- The Anome (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't avoid being rude here. Are you so stupid as to continue to claim that individuals are "Published" in the following document, (as in their names appear within) WP:RS? And following the GUIDELINE of WP:N, the reversions away from the last long form, to the current short form, are completely without justification. Following the rules here, how about you? And once again, with WP:UNDUE You are pointing to a guideline about "neutrality" over an issue involving bias, and when it is acceptable. ShadowKomet (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html I'm sorry I'm failing to please you. If you don't like my attempts to explain the policies, then please feel free to read them yourself. -- The Anome (talk) 16:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome thank you for proving to me definitively that you are a complete imbicile. You just provided me with absolute proof to that. ShadowKomet (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Amazing. Please see http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html -- The Anome (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Anome This is what you posted: (abridged)"Bell Hooks is published in WP:RS."

I then asked you (abridged)"Where is Bell Hooks published in the WP:RS?"

You then said something about (abridged)"Opinions being reported or published in WP:RS."

I then called you "stupid" and attempted to ask again (abridged)"Do you seriously claim that individuals are published in the following document, (as in they actually appear) WP:RS?"

You are now trying to claim what I imagine to be that I committed an "ad hominem" against you.

So let's get started, a quick lesson in the English Language.

• Published in WP:RS
• Published according to WP:RS
• Published in accordance with WP:RS

Please tell me what each of these is stating, get them all correct, and you get a gold star. ShadowKomet (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

People tend to use a lot of shortcuts, which can make things unnecessarily complicated and confusing at times. The Anome simply meant that bell hooks has been published in (a) reliable source(s) (since "RS" or "WP:RS" is short for "reliable source(s)"; I'm not making this up, it's documented in the Wikipedia glossary), not that she is mentioned in Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Let's remain civil. Cheers, benzband (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Benzband I am waiting for this to excuse a lack of proper clarification when asked for it the first time. ShadowKomet (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@ShadowKomet: I'm not excusing, merely explaining. I too first took your sentence "I did not find Bell Hooks' name in the entire document of the WP:RS" to mean that you did not find hook's name in her book. Anyway, this whole discussion seems quite fruitless at this point. Comment on content, not on the contributor. If you don't have any actual content to discuss, then I have nothing to add. benzband (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@ShadowKomet: Bell Hooks is most certainly notable according to WP:NOTABILITY however she’s not at all relevant to any discussion on this talk page. If you’re concerned about the sources in the article on her, bring those up on her talk page. To answer your question from earlier about who decides what sources are reputable, WP:SOURCE links to the reliable source policy, WP:RS, which is one that I refer back to quite often when I'm trying to decide if the source I want to use is appropriate or when I'm trying to explain why I think a source someone else used is not reliable (WP:NRS). Sometimes I conflate WP:RS with WP:SOURCE because the articles are really similar at the beginning. WP:RS is usually the one that has the answer to my question. You're right that sometimes there might be a source that is often cited as reputable, but it might not be reliable in the context of a specific subject. WP policies acknowledge this, so everything needs to be considered on a case by case basis if challenged. You just need to give specific examples of what source you're referring to and why you don't think it's appropriate for this context. If you want people to seriously consider your argument, build your argument directly off of WP policies (and link to it). For example, more than once on this talk page I've questioned the reliability of the Sunday Times piece by Daubney, because I think that particular piece and its author are biased. I gave a brief explanation for why that I would have elaborated more if the conversation went there. Someone replied and said that Sunday Times is generally considered RS, so I refreshed my memory on RS. I didn’t bother expanding on why I think the author is biased, because I decided that despite that bias, it was being used in an appropriate way according to WP policies:

Biased sources are not inherently disallowed based on bias alone, although other aspects of the source may make it invalid. Neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. WP:NPOV

When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..." WP:RS

You might want to also read WP:NPOVS (not to be confused with WP:NPOV), because it’s more of a philosophical article about why no source is ever really neutral. If don’t want to use WP policies in your argument because you have an issue with the actual policy, like other people have said, that’s a discussion for another page. It’s like the equivalent of a constitutional issue that needs to be decided by the supreme court. As a lower court, Talk:Men going their own way can really only make arguments based on the existing policies and precedent. Permstrump (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump As a matter of fact, I am having less and less issue with the guidelines, and more and more issue with certain editors who are actually the ones not following those guidelines. ShadowKomet (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

All we're asking for is a specific example. Copy a sentence from the article and its source and explain why you don't think it follows the policy. We might agree! I have no idea what you're referring ot though. Permstrump (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump Then you haven't even been paying any attention to the conversation so far. So unappologetically, please piss off, or take a stand back to actually read. My god... ShadowKomet (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL. Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are to notable per Wikipedia's notability guideline, rather than notable to any one particular person.

I've just looked at the article on feminism (even if it's more a matter for discussion over at talk:feminism or the RS noticeboard, and really has no bearing on this article). Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate politics is used four times, to cite claims worded thus: "a feminist advocates…" "some feminists, including bell hooks, argue for…" "other feminists criticize separatist feminism…" and "male participation in feminism is encouraged by feminists and is seen as…". Indeed, it doesn't use the exact wording "according to…", but it is similar. Also, while I'm not familiar with the cited work or its contents, even I found her name, since she is credited as author.

What specific sources relevant to "Men Going Their Own Way" do you feel should be added to the article? Would it not be more productive to bring them up directly? benzband (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That conversation looks to have happened, where as in this conversation, we are learning to iron out who is actually being biased, and violating wikipedia guidelines as it relates to this page for the purpose of generating a better understanding of how others will approach posting information in the future of this article. ie. to improve what is being posted. ShadowKomet (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@ShadowKomet Wikipedia isn't fair (see WP:NOJUSTICE)). To help put this in perspective, I'm interested in MGTOW because of my larger interest in community psychology and I've started and made significant contributions to several articles on the topic. Several years ago some of the edits I made to the article on Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) made some members of that organization very angry because they thought the content I added implied a degree of homophobia (SCA has more gay and lesbian members than similar twelve-step groups). One person threatened me with violence, and others with lawsuits, over what ended up just being a misunderstanding. Like nearly everyone involved in Wikipedia I was just volunteering and trying to do a good job. Eventually I was able to work with a senior member in SCA to make some changes to the article and make everyone happy (or at least not homicidal), but it was a unnecessarily trying and frustrating experience. But... Wikipedia can get like that. It burns a lot of people out, like happened to me. These last few weeks has been the most editing I've done in years. If you stick around long enough and work on some other articles, you'll start sounding like the rest of us in a year or so. :) - Scarpy (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am still waiting for people to properly address my arguments instead of providing pseudo-intellectual responses in the forms of links to documentation, and not providing clearly how they apply to the current predicament. As I've stated earlier, my problems are becoming less and less with the guidelines, and more with just certain editors. ShadowKomet (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You are breaking wikipedia rules on civility. I have seen people blocked for less that some of your comments above. You are also not listening. On your talk page and here multiple editors have tried to explain it to you but you are ignoring them. Again if that continues and you don't pay attention to policy then you risk a block. You've had a lot of help and a lot of tolerance but it will run out soon if you don't change. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Snowded you and a few other editors are more guilty of breaking Wikipedia rules on civility long before I even got involved. As for explaining things, all you have done is commit to pseudo-intellectual responses in the form of providing links, without explaining how their context applies in a clear manner. "Tolerance"? Don't make me laugh, you are dismissing without proper explanations, which again violates "civility" as I have read it. ShadowKomet (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your call, but saying that you are right and everyone else is wrong can only go on for so long before some administrative action is taken against you. ----Snowded ^TALK 19:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

But it's not me! It's the guidelines and the "civility" you pointed me to. Did you seriously think I wouldn't read what you posted to me? did you think I would not apply that information? ROFL ShadowKomet (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)